15 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(04/12/06 12:00pm)
Putting a monetary value on something like art is impossible, yet works of art are bought and sold every day. It is also impossible to say how much a concept like racism costs in monetary terms.
However, our school has found a way to quantify both art and racism in economic terms, and the numbers might surprise you.
Senior art students, both fine arts and graphic design majors, have to do a portfolio review to show off all of their great work as a requirement for graduation.
The reviews are free to attend but, of course, cost money to produce. According to Megan McGrath, senior fine arts major, "It costs fine arts seniors $1,000, at the minimum, to put on a decent show."
Graphic design majors need even more money, as Jess Allen, treasurer of the Art Student Association, says they have, "already used $3,300 - mostly in printing costs." This is after getting rid of the postcards that used to feature each senior's artwork by consolidating everyone's work onto one postcard.
However, the funding they have received does not even come close. Both the fine arts and graphic design seniors received $400 each for all of the seniors - a total of $800.
Yes, that's right, they have to raise $3,500 just so they can graduate.
I cannot imagine that in addition to working on my senior thesis, I would have to spend extra time fund raising, just so I could complete a requirement for graduation.
Since funding for our own students is so low, you might think that the College can't spare money for other expenditures. Not so; the price of bringing racism to the College rang in at $15,002.
That's how much it is costing us, since the money comes from the student activity fund, to host Pat "crazy even to most Republicans" Buchanan.
Buchanan has called Hitler "an individual of great courage" and attacked America's participation in the divestment campaign that was instrumental in ending apartheid in South Africa. He wondered why "white rule of a black majority is inherently wrong."
According to a weekly column Buchanan writes for The American Cause, undocumented immigrants are here to "rape, rob and kill and molest our children." I guess all of those under-the-table jobs they get are just a cover-up. Since there are 12 million undocumented immigrants in America, I imagine that living, unmolested children are quite scarce by now.
He has also claimed that homosexuals deserve to get AIDS because "they have declared war upon nature," and that the Nazi death camp at Treblinka was exaggerated and, perhaps, impossible.
What a great guy!
I would rather our own student arts programs be funded than see our poor public school shell out this kind of money to bring any kind of big name here, much less a virulently racist demagogue like Buchanan. I'm sure that it makes us look big and important to bring someone who everyone recognizes by name. Perhaps it even ups our status from "HOT" to "actually on fire."
But that brings up the obvious question that confronts the millions who undertake plastic surgery every year - how much are we willing to sacrifice so other people think we're hot?
Every year for Accepted Students Day, the College lays down mulch and plants pretty flowers that only last for a few days to impress prospective students. Our slick, new homepage shows flattering quotes from news stories in prominent view, while student events are either not there or are advertised in a smaller font.
Millions of dollars are tied up in the fiasco of our new apartments, which were going to open in 2004. No one knows when the legal wrangling over them will end and construction will begin again, but they stand as a silent testimony to the College's drive to put image first and students second.
All of this money wasted on image and on bringing high-profile speakers to campus should go toward improving the real value of our campus by supporting our students. Apparently, it is more important for our college to look good than to actually have the support for programs that make schools good.
We are spending $15,002 on racism, millions on image and $800 on art. What is wrong with this picture?
Buchanan is allowed to spout his inflammatorily racist rhetoric but, luckily, freedom of speech works both ways. Go see him (since it's free) and tell him that you do not appreciate his racism, hatred and xenophobia. Also ask him to please return the exorbitant sum he is charging to give his speech.
After that, I urge you to call up the College president's office and ask her why the College's image is more important than supporting the student body.
Information from - signal-online.net, theamericancause.org, fair.org
(03/29/06 12:00pm)
Illegal immigration sounds frightening, right? Does it conjure up images of tattered masses of desperately poor people going after your rewarding and high-paying janitorial careers? It's illegal after all.
In a time when everyone seems afraid and our occupation of Iraq grinds past its third anniversary, it's interesting to look at how our government sees foreign people living in this country.
The Border Protection, Anti-terrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act of James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) is a sweeping attack on undocumented immigrants. The resolution makes undocumented immigrants aggravated felons (just like, say, murderers) and also makes it a crime to help them in any way. Hundreds of miles of walls will also go up, just like in Berlin!
Stamp those jackboots down, Sensenbrenner! Make them pay for crossing our border to work for less than minimum wage, only so they can bring the rest of their families across the border.
People should be afraid to come to America! We don't want to get soft and seem too friendly or compassionate, despite our incredible wealth - that's how feudalism ended!
"Protectionism," you might say. "Racism," you might query. "Unnecessarily harsh action against a vulnerable community," you might posit.
However, Sensenbrenner is only reacting naturally. None of these people crossing the border have his white skin and shaky jowls. He is probably put off by the strange color of these immigrants, poor guy.
The usual radical groups, not to mention, of course, the Catholic Church, have criticized this legislation, which passed the U.S. House in December and is going to come up in the Senate soon. Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles said that if this becomes law, he would instruct his priests and nuns to disobey it and help undocumented immigrants. What a bunch of crazy radical liberals those Catholics are!
What's the point in having a "free" society if we cannot keep out all those tired, poor and huddled masses? There's only so much freedom to go around and we cannot just hand it out willy-nilly.
Consider that for a second. What kind of country would we have if immigrants and their children ran everything? I mean, who's an immigrant or descended from immigrants here? Anyone? Anyone?
However, this is only a scary gloss people like Sensenbrenner coat over the real plan. They don't want to keep out hardworking illegal immigrants. They just want to make it impossible for them to become citizens, because aggravated felons cannot become U.S. citizens. This is all a clever ploy to get out the real undesirables: people who might think differently.
Torture, war, wiretapping, fear, extraordinary rendition, more torture, secrecy, more war, mysterious hunting trips and even more torture. This is all a plan to make the U.S. government more reprehensible than usual to people who care about human rights, justice, equality and quaint little notions like that.
All they want is a country where those strange looking people from south of the border can never become U.S. citizens but still work long hours for little pay at menial tasks (you know, like slavery). And they do not want to hear any criticism about it.
What's so wrong with a country like that?
Information from - alternet.org; washingtonpost.com; judiciary.house.gov; "The Gospel vs. H.R. 4437," The New York Times, March 3, 2006
(03/08/06 12:00pm)
Last Thursday, the Senate proved just how scared it was to take a stand against the president's dangerous expansion of police powers by renewing the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act 89-10.
Of course, this is a compromised version that allows you to challenge the gag rule but does not let you say anything to anyone if the government searches your house during an investigation.
Roving wiretaps are still allowed, and the government can still search your house without telling you.
Despite anger from civil liberties organizations and the tireless campaigning of Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), 34 Democrats voted for this bill, and the few Republicans who call themselves civil libertarians also caved in to pressure. Our politicians are afraid to be seen as "soft on terrorism," which explains the hubbub over the United Arab Emirates company buying American ports. Yet no one is willing to be seen as strong on our rights.
The USA PATRIOT Act is unnecessary. It should have expired along with the hysteria and fear that blanketed this country after 9/11. However, the urge to stand up and question what is done in the name of security does not exist in our government.
This urge to be as complacent as possible extends to our campus as well. It is well known that we are not a very political campus, but occasionally there are some interesting moments.
Recently, two new political groups have formed on campus, including one that has provoked a great deal of opposition from the Student Government Association (SGA). If you read the "Eye on the SGA" column in The Signal last week, or attended the recent political debate, then you know I'm talking about the International Socialist Organization.
As quoted in The Signal, many members of SGA were vehemently opposed to the creation of this new group, inventing excuses for why they should not be allowed to form and hurling personal attacks in the most refined manner.
The feeling that overriding conformity should be maintained at all costs is not only damaging to our civil liberties and an environment of open intellectual discourse, but also speaks of a willingness to never question the way the world works.
Eighteen million people die every year of easily preventable diseases and conditions like malaria, dysentery and malnutrition. But that's just how the world works.
Drugs to fight HIV and AIDS are well out of reach for millions of afflicted people in Africa, but that's just how the world works.
Our government has tortured people all over the world, including Guant?namo Bay and Abu Ghraib. It's a common refrain that such poverty and misery will never disappear because that's just how things are.
What we need now is change. We don't need a bunch of people telling us not to question the way things are because they will never change.
What we need now is a willingness not to believe such cynical and uncompassionate views, not only because they spur inaction that harms and kills millions, but also because they kill the spirit that the world can improve.
For that to happen, you have to go against people who urge complacency and acceptance. Every time these people win, change gets further away.
There is always enough pain, misery and death in the world, but never enough justice, equality and hope.
Dissent, dissent, dissent, please dissent.
Information from - nytimes.com, "Investigators for U.N. Urge U.S. to Close Guant?namo," Feb. 17, 2006, by Warren Hoge
(03/01/06 12:00pm)
Dear reader, I hope you will permit an old man a chance to talk for a moment. I recently celebrated my 150th birthday - quite a feat I think, and I feel that it is a time to reflect on my life. Who am I to talk? you might ask. Well let me tell you about myself.
I was born on a swampy piece of land that was not well-known to any person. My father had died several months ago, although some reports indicate that he merely ran away to seek his fortunes in a richer town up the road.
Childbirth was too much for my mother, who died only 10 minutes after the arrival of her child. The midwife on hand could see that my mother was fading fast and quickly asked her what name the child should have. My mother was feverish and did not understand the question so she responded with another. "The Child?" she asked and then promptly died.
This proved to be an unlucky event for me, because the midwife, who was very loyal to all of her patients, put my mother's full response on my birth certificate.
As you can no doubt infer, dear reader, this unfortunate act caused me no end of problems in school. Other children were merciless with their taunts. "Why don't you get a real first name!" they would yell, and another would shout, "Didn't your parents care enough to give you one before they died?" Even one teacher was heard to remark, "It's not like it's the only child here after all."
On many days, I could be found running home to the orphanage crying because of the other children's taunts. This fed a burning desire in my heart to succeed far beyond my bullies. It was my only desire to be more respected, richer and more famous than those bastards - one of whom even referred to himself as a prince, despite our forceful repudiation of a monarchy!
I had to start out small; the only position I could find open to a person of my background and schooling was that of a common teacher. I languished at my post, teaching ignorant little wretches how to add and subtract, and I cursed them and my station every night as I cried myself to sleep.
Eventually, I saved up enough money to get some more education to become a chemist at a nearby chemical-producing company, and I bought a house.
I worked very hard on that swampy plot of land and eventually drained most of it to provide enough land to build my estate.
My richer peers scoffed at my attempts to build up a sizeable estate, but I persisted. Nothing would stop me from being better than them!
I'll admit that some of my first attempts at grandiose buildings lacked a certain aesthetic value. In fact, some of the local people were so incensed at some of my new additions that they passed a law prohibiting me from building above a certain height.
"Pish posh," I said to them.
I am the type not to let my failures weigh me down. As soon as I realized that some of my estate's buildings were what is often termed "eyesores," I resolved to build some more.
I knew that I could find the respect I deserved once I figured out what kind of buildings people respected. Then I remembered my old classics teacher, and the answer came to me: columns!
Now my estate can boast a 10-column-per-square-mile ratio, which is more than most of my richer peers, I might add!
Even after my genius decision regarding columns, I still had not achieved the recognition I knew I deserved.
I continued to build more, and if a few of my older buildings fell into disrepair or were condemned (as were the stables I had built to commemorate our nation's centennial), I had other concerns that captured my attention.
Let me also point out, dear reader, lest you think I am a man who cannot control my expenses, that in all of this construction I always used the cheapest materials and laborers available. Some buildings took a little longer than I had originally planned, but that is the price of greatness!
To cap off my rise to prominence I designed a coat of arms for myself, but in a fit of cleverness that astounded even me, I erased one of the sides to the traditional shield design. Ha ha, that'll show my supposed "betters" who's more in touch with the modern arts movements!
Now, I sit gladly on my estate and watch the continued construction of new buildings, which is sure to continue any day now, and think of how glad I am.
Other people finally noticed me!
(02/15/06 12:00pm)
Mark Wallace was raised by nice Christian parents who taught him what they thought was right and wrong. For the most part, other people in the world agreed with the generalities of what Mark's parents thought, like killing is bad and charity is good.
Mark's father had served in the Army and so had his grandfather. Both his parents felt that military service for their country was a good thing.
When some angry people crashed a plane into some buildings in a city in Mark's country, everyone in the world agreed it was terrible and felt very bad because people had died.
Mark felt so bad that he joined his country's military because he had always been told it was a good thing and he wanted to fix a world that let such terrible things happen. He believed his country's leaders when they said they wanted to do the same thing. After all, they looked and talked just like what Mark thought was good.
His country first invaded a poor country in Asia whose government had supported the people who flew those planes into Mark's country's buildings.
Then Mark's country invaded another country because it had weapons that threatened Mark's country.
The rest of the world did not like this decision. They wrung their hands and said they would not support it, but they could not do anything to stop it because Mark's country was bigger and stronger than all of them.
Mark thought those other countries were afraid of doing the right thing because it was dangerous and hard.
After the threatening government was gone, Mark thought that maybe he could go home, but his commander told him they had to find the threatening weapons and destroy them.
Mark's company searched for months but did not find any of the weapons. He thought that maybe some other soldiers would find them. But no one did.
Mark talked to other soldiers about how they had not found any weapons. "I'm not sure this was the right thing to do anymore," he said. "I was sure but now I'm not."
Some of the other soldiers told him to shut up and just try to stay alive, which was becoming harder and harder to do.
Others said they were not sure either, but in the military you can't just quit. If you do, they might shoot you.
One day Mark had to go to a prison to help transfer some of its prisoners. They had a break, so Mark wandered around. He went through one door and saw a pile of naked men on the floor. They were tied together and could not get up.
A naked man was chained to the wall and a dog was trying to bite him. Another soldier from Mark's country held back the dog.
One soldier kicked the naked pile of men, and some cried out in pain. Another soldier cursed the men and spat on them.
Mark walked forward but the soldier in charge told him to get the fuck out.
That night Mark watched his leaders give a speech on TV about how their country was spreading freedom throughout the world. Mark felt very sick to his stomach and vomited his dinner. He could not sleep at all that night.
When Mark finally returned home, lots of people were no longer sure that what their country was doing was right.
Mark watched a lot of TV when he got back. He saw his leaders make a lot of speeches about freedom and democracy. But their definitions of those words seemed different to Mark than what he thought they meant.
Mark cried a lot at night. When he told his girlfriend about how sad he was, she told him it wasn't his fault because he thought he was doing the right thing.
Mark said that he wished there was some way to know if something was the right thing to do before you did it. Then maybe people would act like human beings and not kick piles of other human beings.
He also said that none of his children would grow up thinking it was a good thing to join the military.
(02/08/06 12:00pm)
Dick Cheney looks like an evil turtle.
I mention this not to make fun of old Dick (OK, that's a lie) but for two important reasons. First, his reptilian visage offered me something to laugh at during the president's alternately boring and distressing State of the Union address. It makes me laugh just thinking about it right now. Chuckle.
The second reason I mention it is because it ties in with the one thing in the president's speech with which I agreed. The defining point in the speech for me was when Bush warned against "human-animal hybrids" that are, through cloning, I suppose, being pursued throughout the world today.
Of course we all want to rid the world of any human-hawk creatures that might be able to dominate us through their ability to fly, or the also very dangerous dolphin-humans that could seek to control the oceans.
I'm glad that our president is focusing on such important issues, but I do have a couple of things to add to his argument.
Since he has finally come out against human-animal hybrids, I would urge him to purge his own administration first. The vice president, as I mentioned earlier (see how I'm tying this all together?), is obviously a result of some human-animal cloning that was well ahead of its time. If the president removes the man-turtle hybrid known as Cheney, who has somehow infiltrated the highest echelons of government, it's fine by me.
He should also look into the Democratic governor of Virginia, Tim Kaine, who delivered their limp and disappointing (though not surprising) rebuttal. His roving left eyebrow looked suspiciously like a certain someone might have some caterpillar genes.
This is something everyone can agree on and I applaud the president for taking such a strong stand against human-animal hybrids.
I understand why he neglected to talk about the Medicare crisis that has caused many states, including California and Illinois, to use emergency funds to cover medicine for elderly patients.
How can we focus on something as boring and tired as health care when there might be a race of rat-men pillaging our nation's food stores while we sleep? Think about it! While we sleep!
Surely the 45.8 million Americans without health care coverage understand that sacrifices must be made to defeat such creatures. I know I'd rather have pneumonia than worry about some kind of human-cat creature killing me in my sleep.
Perhaps this is real reason we have spent over a trillion dollars to turn Iraq into a barely functioning country wracked by violence. Maybe Bush saw this danger several years ago and sent our troops in to cut off any programs that might develop a human-llama.
That must be why we were lied to about WMDs - the president was not sure that the American people were ready to face the truth about how far Iraqi scientists had progressed on making a viable human-chameleon (think about how good a soldier that would make).
It makes as much sense as anything else he's ever said.
Information from - c-span.org, census.gov
(12/07/05 12:00pm)
As the looming obstacle of finals approaches, so does the eventual date when the College's campus will shut down for Winter Break.
Our community will break apart, and most students will go home to the four corners of the world, though mostly in New Jersey.
Leaving the campus means more than just leaving a particular place, but a whole little society composed of classes, assignments, clubs, parties and people.
I mention this because it's easy to forget during the school year that there is a world outside of the College, and during the break we get thrown back into it.
We all get wrapped up in the lives we have carved out for ourselves here, yet we are also always part of a wider world.
In fact, that world is so large that it is scary to even think about trying to learn anything worthwhile about it.
However, we should all be aware of what goes on in the world, because we are a part of it and we affect it no matter how little we know about it.
Think about everything you buy on a daily basis. Every time you buy a sandwich at a local restaurant there is a whole series of complex relationships.
Some farmer grew grain and then sold it to someone else to make it into bread. That bread was then shipped to Ewing and combined with other food products that had similarly complex backgrounds.
Purchasing that sandwich supports certain people and does not support other food producers. The same goes for all our goods, and for the most part, we do not personally know who made the things we use.
Perhaps, though, we should know something about them.
For instance, where does the money I pay for a $1.50 cup of coffee go? Who gets paid what amount for their work, and is that something that I personally think is fair? And if I disagree with something, what should I do instead?
It might seem daunting to consider such things, but we owe it to ourselves and to the people who are often getting paid very little to make the things we consume.
Hand in hand with the economic underpinnings of our world are the political ones.
A little over a month ago it was reported in the Washington Post that the CIA had secret prisons in Eastern Europe.
No one knows what goes on in these prisons, but given the present administration's attempts to gain exceptions to legislation banning the use of torture, and the many prison scandals involving torture, it is not hard to guess.
That there are even such prisons was, "known to only a handful of officials in the United States," and that is a dangerous proposition. The CIA is a part of our government, which is supposedly an expression of our collective will as a people.
That's our government out there doing things to people with our silent approval. Regardless of your particular feelings about the president, it should strike you as odd that our government does things in our name in the "interests" of the American people, and we have absolutely no idea about it.
It is only possible for us, as citizens of this nation, to question whether we should do something in response.
How else can we make our government accountable for the actions it takes in our name?
Once we know about something, we can question it, and ourselves, to see if we really support it.
The world does not have to be any particular way. We can change it and make it into whatever kind of place we think is best, using reason and compassion.
Our abilities to gain knowledge and then to question what that knowledge means are the most important tools we have to form opinions, and then to act on them. Without those abilities, we are intellectually blind.
Of course there is never going to be enough time to learn everything that goes on in our huge world every day, but we should not let that be a reason for apathy.
It is dangerous to accept anything as dogma without a second thought, including our own personal beliefs. Question yourself, and why exactly you believe the things you do.
We are all taught beliefs growing up by parents, teachers and others, but there is no reason to accept something just because an authority figure said so. Think for yourself.
I realize I sound like an arrogant prick, so feel free to disregard everything I have written. Remember, though, that by doing so you are exercising the very abilities that I have been mentioning.
So think about this over the break, when we once again leave our little community.
Only once we have some kind of idea about what is going on in the world can we decide if we like the way things are. And only then will things start to change.
Information from - hrw.org/english/docs/2005/11/21/usdom12069.htm, washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/01/AR2005110101644.html
(11/30/05 12:00pm)
If you're like me then you spend most of your time sitting around, thinking how everything other people do is completely wrong.
You do this because you know that you are absolutely right.
Everything other people do falls under this judgemental gaze, especially when it comes to sex. It may surprise you that right now people are having sex, and enjoying it.
Shocking, I know.
At least there's still the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to man the bulwarks against a tide of safe, healthy orgasms that would surely sweep over this country like a terrible, horrible flood of pleasure.
In May 2004, our brave governmental agency, whose purpose is to test the safety of drugs, rejected the emergency contraceptive Plan B for over-the-counter sale.
This "morning-after" pill is used if there was a problem with another contraceptive, like if a condom broke, or if no preventive measures were taken.
It is usually effective at stopping a pregnancy if taken within 72 hours.
Sounds good, right? Wrong.
Why do we need one form of contraceptive just to fix the mistakes of other kinds? That's just ridiculous.
It is not up to the government to allow drugs on the market that allow people to determine when and how they should have children. That's giving people far too much control over their own lives.
If America has ever stood for anything, it has stood for that: control.
Unfortunately, the Government Accountability Office (G.A.O.), the part of the government that investigates everyone else ("but who watches them?" one might snarkily say), reported on Nov. 14 that the FDA did not follow its usual procedures in the case of Plan B.
Usually, the FDA follows the advice of its review committee, the Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee, which voted 23 to 4 in favor of selling Plan B over-the-counter.
The FDA rejected this vote and the support of its review staff seemingly out of nowhere, citing that there had not been enough tests done on girls under 16.
This move confused and angered many people who felt the decision was politically motivated and did not follow good scientific procedure.
The G.A.O. report seems to agree with this by saying that the Plan B case was, "not typical of the other 67 prescription-to-(over-the-counter) switch decisions made from 1994 to 2004."
This was, in part, because many members of the FDA disagreed with the decision and said that there was plenty of evidence that disproved the 'novel' rationale that it would increase sexual activity among teenagers.
In all of the other instances, the FDA approved the drugs that its advisory committees recommended.
You might think that some members of the FDA overstepped their bounds, but it turns out they had a very good reason.
One member of the advisory committee, which voted in favor of approving Plan B, correctly identified the threat posed to the American people, and wrote to higher-ups in the FDA.
His name is W. David Hager and he knew Plan B was a plot of no one other than that most vile of tricksters: Satan.
In a speech given at the Asbury College chapel in Kentucky in October 2004, Hager revealed that he had written a letter to the FDA director citing reasons that the FDA should not approve Plan B.
Hager, who is a well-known gynecologist and evangelical, said he "argued from a scientific perspective, and God took that information, and he used it . to influence the decision."
This explains why the FDA rejected Plan B despite the fact that, according to the G.A.O. report, their own reviewers concluded that access to the drug "did not result in inappropriate use by adolescents . an increase in the number of sexual partners or the frequency of unprotected intercourse or an increase in the frequency of STDs."
But why did God choose to act in this instance? Hager explains that too. "Once again, what Satan meant for evil, God turned into good."
Phew, I guess we got lucky there. Hager and God acted, and Satan was thwarted.
That sneaky Prince of Lies must have been messing with the scientific data in this case. It's a good thing Hager was there on the advisory board to stop Satan. I'm sure the last thing any of us wants is pits of hellfire to open up under the beds of consenting adults in America.
But this still leaves the question open: where will Satan strike next?
Perhaps there is some undetected evil about drugs that are already sold over-the-counter.
Is Satan conspiring to turn ibuprofen against us? Or maybe he'll strike through cough medicine.
One thing is for certain. America needs people like Hager in positions of power. Just like the judges in Salem, Mass. so long ago, he is not afraid to go after creatures like Satan.
So it's harder to get a drug that prevents unintended pregnancies. At least we stopped Satan. Score one for America; we beat the Prince of Darkness.
Information from - go2planb.com, nytimes.com, washingtonpost.com, gao.gov
(11/16/05 12:00pm)
Many have said there is an education crisis in this country. If you look around at our educational institutions with an appraising eye, this is the only possible conclusion.
Our children are stupid and are in danger of becoming stupider.
According to the 2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress report, this trend toward stupidity apparently comes about as children get older.
While standardized tests show increased reading scores for nine-year-olds, since the '70s our teenagers have remained at the same level, unwilling or unable to improve.
In 2002, our elected government met this problem head-on with the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), which promised to make our schools accountable for the low test scores of their students.
This new plan created a standard of "adequate yearly progress" to identify if students are improving their scores on annual and semiannual tests.
If the school does not make enough progress, parents can choose to transfer their students to other schools, which will have no problem absorbing new students, or use some of the private tutor companies that 20 percent of a school's budget must go to once it is classified as "failing."
The plan ranks all students equally; it groups developmentally disabled students with all other students. We should not let a little thing like Down syndrome keep us from holding a child to the same standards as his or her peers.
Also, testing is only done on reading and science because only the weird kids and goths like the social sciences and art.
Unfortunately, the provisions of NCLB have been hard to implement because of a lack of resources.
Our country is not that wealthy and sometimes our plans outstrip our financial capabilities. After all, the $3,747.36 billion (that's well over three trillion) in our yearly budget only goes so far these days.
So NCLB has not received the federal funding that was promised to the states, coming up $13.1 billion short this year.
However, it's not fair to blame the federal government - like Connecticut has by suing the government because of the underfunding - they only promised to fund the program completely.
If you believe a promise from this administration, you should probably never answer the phone because telemarketers are going to eat you alive.
Some people, like rethinkingschools.org, urge a more holistic approach where critical thinking and learning skills are taught rather than how to do well on a standardized test.
But let's be serious, those things are hard to teach and hard to learn, as anyone who has taken a logic class can attest.
It's dangerous to put too much faith in our nation's children -look who they grow up into: us.
So, why bother?
Our youngest children do well on these tests but our older children are losing out compared to children from places with too many consonants, like Slovenia, and places that sound made-up, like Cyprus.
All the unrest around education and NCLB mean that there is a need for a change. It's time to take bold action, and that always means it's time to start killing people.
If our teenagers are unwilling to work a little harder to fill in a few more of the right bubbles on their Scantron sheets, perhaps we should start making examples of them.
We should start with the kids that do the worst on these tests.
Kill a few of them and if that doesn't motivate the rest, then they can choose between working in textile factories modeled on the productive systems in China and Thailand, or an exciting career in coal mining.
Similarly, we cannot let the smart kids get complacent.
Take one kid that does really well on standardized tests and shoot him or her in front of their peers.
That will make sure they keep getting high scores. Nothing motivates people like fear of death.
This plan will also help alleviate poverty.
Poor families will have fewer expenses with fewer children. The remaining poor children will be extra motivated to do well.
Middle class families will also benefit from this, as it will weed out the unmotivated kids who move into their parents' basements after graduation.
With fewer kids, we could also spend less of our budget on education and have more left over for everything else that's worthwhile. Tax cuts for everyone!
I know some people will say that this plan is inhumane and unfair.
However, I'd like to remind everyone that we would not be killing the cute nine-year-old kids that do well on standardized tests.
Those little munchkins with their naive worldviews and precocious attitudes will have nothing to fear.
Once they get to high school though, if their test scores start to drop they might find themselves dropping - a quick six feet.
Of course by then, acne will have hit and the moodiness of the teenage mindset taken hold, so nobody will really miss our young misanthropes.
Once this plan is implemented I guarantee our students will be the best in the world, or they'll die trying.
Information from - nces.ed.gov, ed.gov, resultsforamerica.org, nathannewman.org, "Growing Unrest for NCLB" - American School Board Journal
(11/02/05 12:00pm)
Do you like to shoot people?
Then perhaps you'll feel at home in Florida, where a new law (Bill S.0436) allows citizens to use deadly force in public if they have a license for a concealed weapon and feel threatened.
The new "stand your ground" law, which went into effect Oct. 1 of this year, makes it legal to stand your ground and "meet force with force."
The new law protects people who use deadly force in situations where they fear for their lives, the lives of others, feel threatened and to prevent the "commission of a forcible felony."
This is different than the generally accepted concept of self-defense where a person has a right to defend him or herself if there is no other recourse, because this law eliminates the right to retreat.
This replaces the original legal recourse where people are supposed to flee a dangerous situation.
This is intelligent because most ordinary citizens do not have the training to deal with dangerous people and to prevent unnecessary loss of life.
Under this new law people should no longer run away from a threatening or dangerous situation, but should instead go on the offense.
However, it is easy to say that you felt threatened after you have pulled the trigger.
It is not so easy to bring someone back to life after they have been shot in the heart.
This law does sound nice and heroic when you think of an ordinary citizen stopping some crazed killer.
However, that's why there is a law about self-defense. If you have no other choice, then yes, you can use force to defend yourself.
What this law allows is a kind of preemptive force where anyone with a concealed weapon can decide that a situation is threatening to them and, in response, start shooting.
Admittedly there are only about 350,000 people in Florida with concealed weapon permits (they are the only group that is protected under the new law) but the most damaging aspect of this law is the kind of brutal overuse of force it encourages.
Let's take a hypothetical example. Say that there is an argument between two men, named Bob and Frank, over a minor traffic accident.
Each claims it was the other's fault and the argument gets quite heated. Frank threatens Bob with bodily harm.
Now Bob has a choice: he can either leave the situation or pull out his concealed weapon and shoot Frank because he feels threatened.
What is the right choice?
The ethical choice is to leave and not use force because it is wrong to harm other people unless there is no other possible action to take to protect yourself and others.
The difference between my example and a permissible case of self-defense is whether or not Bob could have left.
If he could not leave, then the choice he had was to use force or have force used on him.
This is what the law used to defend with the "right to retreat."
This new law now defends Bob if he decides to shoot Frank, even if he could have just left the situation.
This is a terrible distortion of ethics and the law.
Take the case of Bob and multiply it by 350,000 and you can start to see what kind of overuse of force this law encourages.
It's the same kind of brutal overuse of force that, in 1999, caused four New York City police officers to shoot at Amadou Diallo, who was unarmed and reaching into his pocket for his wallet.
This new law creates a kind of street justice where people with guns make split-second decisions that end other people's lives.
No one has the right to take another person's life unless there is absolutely no other recourse to save their own or others' lives.
It may sound really macho and cool to think of yourself as a lone gunman standing against a criminal in the streets, but it's a bad idea.
Vigilante justice is not justice.
This law creates an elite corps of gunmen, those 350,000 concealed weapon owners, who now have the right to use deadly force if they see fit.
These gun owners are not law enforcement agents and have no mandate from the people to use force against others.
This is the preemptive force doctrine, which has done us such good abroad, in our own nation.
When did we forget that killing people is something to be avoided?
If someone threatens you, the safest and best course of action is to leave and call the police.
It's not that glamorous and you don't get to "meet force with force" but we do not live in a Dirty Harry movie.
We live in the real world where if you shoot someone, they stay dead forever.
Information from - flsenate.gov/data, shootfirstlaw.org, "The shoot first state? Ads warn about new gun law" St. Petersburg Times,?Steve Bousquet?Sept. 29, 2005.?pg.?1.A, washingtonpost.com
(10/12/05 12:00pm)
Science is presently defending its life in Pennsylvania and if it loses, everyone in America will lose too.
Monday, Sept. 26 in Dover, Pa., one of the trials that is sure to have a wide-reaching impact in the 21st century began. The trial of Kitzmiller v. Dover was brought by local parents who are angry that the town school board passed a resolution that requires science teachers to present a statement supporting intelligent design (ID) and saying that evolution, "is 'not a fact' and has inexplicable 'gaps.'"
The parents allege that ID is an attempt to disguise creationism as a scientific theory and sneak religion into the classroom after the 1987 Supreme Court decision in Edwards v. Aguillard outlawed it.
Early testimony in the trial supports their position strongly.
However, the fact that this case is even going on shows a glaring lack of understanding and respect for scientific practice and method. By examining the facts of what 'intelligent design,' is it is easy to see why it does not belong in a science classroom.
The argument for ID basically says that life is too complex to have arisen just from evolution and that some kind of being must have designed it.
Defenders of this view, like Lehigh University professor Michael J. Behe, say that some constructs in life, like the first cell, contain too many separate parts, which are useless on their own, for the whole construct to have developed naturally. Behe calls this position irreducible complexity and uses the example of a mousetrap to show how a complex structure could not have arisen from separate, useless parts when each part is needed for the whole.
Scientists, however, have an explanation for this. They counter that while it is true that a complete complex structure could not have arisen all at once, it is probably the case that "evolution borrowed existing structures for new purposes, like taking the spring of a clothespin for use in a mousetrap."
In addition, the many parts of a cell, like the parts of a mousetrap, had purposes before they came together. One example usually given by intelligent designers is that the flagella in bacteria (used for movement) have smaller structures in them that are useless outside of the whole construct. Kenneth Miller, a biology professor at Brown University, counters this quite easily, as evidence shows that the "group of proteins from the flagellum does work without the rest of the machine - it's used by many bacteria as a device for injecting poisons into other cells."
There are other arguments for ID, and even if scientists did not have explanations defeating them, which they do, nothing changes the fact that ID is not a scientific theory. It is not testable by any repeatable experiments, or any kind of experiments at all, and there is no body of evidence beyond conjecture and faith that supports it.
Yes, evolution is a theory, but in the scientific community, that does not mean it is untested or lacks supporting evidence. A scientific theory is defined as, "a structure of related ideas that explains one or more natural phenomena and is supported by observations from the natural world; it is not something less than a 'fact,'" so if you think that any old idea can be called a scientific theory, you are very mistaken.
Evolution has been tested and retested for 150 years and all of the evidence gathered has helped to refine the theory and change it, but no evidence has ever disproved it. There are some gaps in the evidence, though not in the theory, but all that means is that more work needs to be done. Scientists are able to say that they do not know everything yet and that further experiments will hopefully provide answers. Science is a living discipline, which constantly corrects itself and adds new knowledge.
ID, however, remains just a personal belief, and such beliefs should not be mixed with the curriculum in a public school. Personal beliefs have their place in people's lives and in religion classes, but not in science class.
A science professor at the College, who asked not to be named, agrees with this sentiment. "Personal belief systems have to remain separate from what is taught in the classroom," adding that "scientific facts do not care what you believe in."
Letting ID into science classes would be same thing as telling police investigators that they must consider that spirits and demons cause murders instead of looking for a human perpetrator.
This issue is not a question of giving equal time to an opposing theory to evolution. It is a question of whether we want to continue making scientific progress, which has given us all the fruits of modern life, or stop trying to understand the world in an intelligent way and slide back into superstition.
Information from - nytimes.com, actionbioscience.org, "The Evolving Clash of Darwinists and Doubters" by Kenneth Chang, "Challenged by Creationists, Museums Answer Back" by Cornelia Dean.
(09/28/05 12:00pm)
The cost of Katrina has reached at least $200 billion, and one of the biggest questions in Washington is how our government is going to pay for it. It's not yet known how many lives were lost in New Orleans and Mississippi - not that the loss can be measured in dollars anyway. The money to pay for the damages from Katrina, however, has to come from somewhere in the federal budget.
It's a good thing that the 'fiscally responsible' party is in power now, when hard financial decisions have to be made. Yes, we are lucky to have the same people that so aptly handled the budget surplus of a few years ago still at the helm of our nation. And they have a plan. Its name is 'Operation Offset' and it seeks to cut over $600 billion from the federal budget over 10 years.
That may sound like a lot more than is needed, and it's because House Republicans are jumping on the chance presented by Katrina to cut programs they have long thought were frivolous.
The programs they intend to cut include the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the National Endowment for the Arts, federal matching funds for presidential candidates and many of NASA's programs. In addition, some House Republicans want to push back implementation of the Medicare prescription drug benefit for seniors because, as Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) says, "Our seniors have gone 220 years without a prescription drug benefit. I think they can wait one more year."
While Flake's compassion certainly is heartwarming, a much larger issue is at stake here: limited government versus large government. In the wake of one of our nation's worst disasters ever, republicans want to limit the government's ability to help its citizens even more.
The ideals of limited government helped spur the budget cuts that left the levees around New Orleans unable to withstand the force of Katrina. Limited government called for the reduction of Federal Emergency Management Association's budget and reduced its ability to respond to the disaster. Limited government left 45 million Americans without health care last year and helped create the poverty in New Orleans that contributed to many deaths.
One lesson that we should learn from Katrina is that limited government does not benefit the people of this country. Such a large-scale domestic policy failure obviously points to the fact that something is wrong.
Yet they still want to cut more. Despite a war that has cost us $300 billion already, republicans want to eliminate Big Bird and music classes from public schools.
There's a better solution.
According to estimates, rolling back Bush's tax cuts, which benefited the wealthiest Americans the most, would save the government $327 billion. That is more than enough to cover the damage caused by Katrina.
In addition to that, just think of what we could do if billions were not siphoned off for a war that over half of this country does not think we can win.
We can have a domestic policy that works for us. We can have a domestic policy that actually works to eliminate poverty in America and gives people access to health care, something every other first-world nation has.
We can have all of that. We just cannot have it and Bush's administration at the same time.
Information from - hillnews.com, thinkprogress.org, cnn.com
(09/14/05 12:00pm)
Everyone wants a better world. And right now there is a chance to actually make it happen.
The Millennium Development Goals (MDG) were proposed in 2000 by the United Nations to provide a plan for the wealthy nations in the world to finally live up to their responsibility and help fix the many imminent crises in the world today. Among those listed were eliminating extreme poverty, halting and reversing global climate change and environmental damage, lowering infant and maternal death rates, achieving universal education, fighting for women's rights and gender equality, fighting diseases like AIDS and malaria and fostering development everywhere.
Arguably the most important of these goals - although they are all absolutely necessary for a healthy, peaceful and prosperous future for humanity - is eliminating extreme poverty. Extreme poverty is defined as living on less than one U.S. dollar per day. At least 1.1 billion people live and die at this level right now. And die they do: 20,000 die every day because of lack of food, safe water or basic medical care.
I would like to assume that no one wants other people to die no matter where they are, because human suffering is human suffering no matter what plot of ground you call home.
In an article in the September issue of Scientific American, the head of the U.N. Millennium project, Jeffery D. Sachs, argues that extreme poverty could be eliminated by 2025 through an investment of only 0.7 percent of the rich, industrial nations' gross national product. Sachs, who also works with Columbia and holds a doctorate in economics from Harvard, described the plan as, "giving a billion people a hand up instead of a handout."
This help would come in the form of infrastructure building. New tools like drip irrigation, which delivers water straight to plants roots, and treadle pumps, which function as human-powered wells, are cheap and boost productivity.
These tools would allow small farmers to grow more food and make more than enough money to compensate for what was invested. Farmers can lift themselves, their children and eventually their countries out of extreme poverty.
Similar plans accompany each specific goal and guarantee that they would be successful in creating some real positive change in the world and reducing human suffering.
Some might say that doing this will only strengthen other countries and weaken the industrialized nations like America, but the benefits of these plans will be global. The implementation of these goals will also lead to more stable governments worldwide, which will cut down on wars, famines and genocides. More stable governments will lead to better conditions and cut down on terrorism because people will be less desperate and have more hope for bettering their lives through non-violent means.
The poorer nations in the world will finally be able to contribute to the world economy rather than just be exploited by it. This will increase trade worldwide and benefit everyone, including Americans.
Thus, there's no surprise that almost everyone in the world supports the MDGs. On Sept. 14, the 2005 U.N. World Summit will convene to discuss international issues, and in particular to create a plan to implement these goals. Over 170 countries have already signed off on the draft agreement for this summit - the only one that didn't was the United States.
Our ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, made hundreds of changes to the draft resolution for the summit that cripples both it and the MDGs. His revised draft deletes sections detailing the industrialized nations' contributions of 0.7 percent in order to fund the MDGs.
Additional deleted sections addressed global climate change, which is staggering considering the present disaster in Louisiana. Bolton also cut out sections which agreed on nuclear disarmament and the use of force as a last resort. Another callous cut was made to a section that would, "encourage pharmaceutical companies to make anti-retroviral (HIV/AIDS) drugs affordable." Who wants to help sick people anyway? They'll probably just end up dying of something else later, right?
No other country in the world supports Bolton's changes, not even our loyal ally Britain. Everyone else in the world recognizes that we have a responsibility and a real chance to help change the world.
It is the height of stupidity and ignorance for our government to continue ignoring the world and all of its problems as if we didn't live here too. We need to get Bolton as far away from the United Nations as possible and start supporting initiatives like the Millennium Development Goals that could provide real hope for the future.
Information from - talkingpointsmemo.com, "Neocon Spanner is Thrown in UN Works," Julian Borger, The Guardian Weekly, "Can Extreme Poverty Be Eliminated," Jeffrey D. Sachs, "The Big Potential of Small Farms," Paul Polak, Scientific American
(09/07/05 12:00pm)
Everyone likes to think that America is a nation of equality and compassion, but the news this past week shows that what really matters in America is where you live and what color you are.
According to census data released a few days ago the poverty rate in America rose again last year up to 12.7 percent, adding another 1.1 million people, and another 800,000 people joined the ranks of the uninsured making the number 45.8 million. It's staggering to think that in the richest country in the world there are still some many people without any kind of health insurance.
Sadly, though, it is not a surprising fact considering the considerable disparity in incomes in America. 50.1 percent of the nation's overall income went to the top 20 percent of Americans in 2004. The top .01 percent of this country, about 145,000 people, makes an average of 3 million dollars a year, and things are only getting better for them.
Bush's tax cuts signed in 2001, which were sold to the country as an egalitarian measure that would benefit everyone, actually benefit, surprise, the rich the most. 53 percent of the tax cuts go to the richest 10 percent of this country and the lucky top .01 percent (those 145,000) will get 15 percent of these cuts.
But those are all just numbers and do not represent the true human scope of income and racial inequality in America.
To view that all you have to do is turn on the news about the disaster in New Orleans.
There are no clear numbers for the dead and displaced in the wake of Katrina yet, but just looking at the official evacuation plan the "Southeast Louisiana Hurricane Evacuation and Sheltering Plan" shows us certain things.
In the case of a hurricane as strong as Katrina this plan says that, "The primary means of hurricane evacuation will be personal vehicles," and for everyone else there will be buses provided.
The inherent inequality of this is that while people with cars could leave anytime they wanted everyone else had to go to shelters, like the Superdome, and wait until this past Wednesday to be bused out. Many people are still stranded in the city and the conditions in places like the Superdome, where some refugees have died while waiting for aid, are deplorable. And, of course, the people who are left behind and dying are predominantly poor African-Americans.
The same census data I mentioned earlier showed that once again African-Americans had the lowest median household income in 2004. The inequality gap in America is not and never has been limited just to money but to race as well.
Once the complete death tolls are known from this disaster, which is projected to be worse than 9/11, no one will be surprised when the majority of the dead are poor African-Americans. The question is whether anyone will care.
FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which responds to disasters like this was drastically under funded in the past few years since it was placed under the Department of Homeland Security and had to fight for funding with the War on Terrorism. Similarly the funding for the Army Corps of Engineers to upkeep and improve the levees around New Orleans also received heavy cuts by the Bush administration.
Now, New Orleans has always been a city of mostly poor African-Americans despite all of the Mardi Gras hoopla. That racial fact is certainly a factor in the government's slow response time.
It is staggering to think that these people are now considered refugees. American citizens are refugees in their own country. Our country.
The people still trapped in the city are our fellow Americans. It is disgusting that the governmental response has been so slow.
Our government left these people to rot and die by not having a good evacuation plan, by not funding the proper agencies, and by taking far too many days to respond.
These people needed the help of the federal government and Bush let them down. Kanye West was right, "George Bush does not care about black people."
I desperately hope that the recent news coverage of refugees will finally awaken some kind of empathy in the hearts of our leaders to not only respond to this disaster, but also attempt to fight inequality everywhere in America.
In the meantime please donate whatever you can. They need our help.
(08/31/05 12:00pm)
I cried after the 2004 election.
It devastated me (and 59,028,109 others). I was left sitting in a corner, clutching a bottle of booze that would never cut education spending or send other unlucky 20 year-olds off to die.
But now revitalized by summer, and a refreshingly large drop in the president's approval ratings, there is hope. There is a better future.
We can impeach the president.
More than that, we have to impeach George Walker Bush. He is doing incredible damage to our country and world.
As he demonstrated by appointing John Bolton to the U.N. ambassador's position during the congressional recess Bush is more than willing to side-step and ignore the other branches of our government if he can not get his way.
Let's not forget that public officials serve at the pleasure of the people. Impeachment, charging an official with a crime while in office, is the first step to removing Bush from office, an idea that fills me with pleasure.
Frankly, Bush just does not care about the average American.
His 'stay the course' attitude may satisfy some, although it is an increasingly small contingent of the populace, but as the current morass in Iraq shows his shortsightedness is harming the world.
His refusal to talk to Cindy Sheehan about why her son died, and instead advising her that he is sensitive to her issues but "it's also important for me to go on with my life" as if she were an angry ex-girlfriend, was not only morally callous but indicative of a leader who does not care about the people he is supposedly representing.
Even worse than that is the sad fact that Bush has never attended a single funeral for a soldier killed in Iraq. He has no problem sending soldiers to die, but apparently a big problem acknowledging their sacrifices.
I suppose we should not be surprised since this is the same administration that until recently did not allow any photos of the caskets of dead soldiers to be released publicly.
Of course none of these are impeachable crimes like Treason, Bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors as outlined in Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution.
Thankfully Bush and company have committed more than enough impeachable offenses, and now we have proof of them.
That proof resides in the now infamous Downing Street memos. These memos (downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html and timesonline.co.uk) are records of briefings given by top UK intelligence officials about the Bush administration's preparations for war with Iraq in 2002.
They illustrate in bold detail a Bush administration that was determined to overthrow Saddam, "through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and Weapons of Mass Destruction. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy," presumably because real reasons for an invasion did not exist.
These memos could be dismissed as heresy, as Bush has attempted to do, if it was not for a startling fact unearthed after the invasion was over.
There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, the stated reason along with links to terrorism (also uncorroborated) for the invasion.
George Tenet resigned as director of the CIA on June 4, 2004 in an attempt to show that the WMD fiasco was really the fault of bad intelligence.
Everyone in the government was the victim of this 'bad intelligence' and now this mistake could be forgotten. However, these memos show that the intelligence was not at fault, our elected officials were.
Bush and his administration lied to the American people. Worse than that, they manipulated and abused their positions of power, and should be punished for it.
They violated international conventions and irrevocably tarnished this nation's reputation. Presidents have been impeached for far less.
Nixon was going to be impeached for abusing his position and misusing governmental agencies to cover up the Watergate break-in, an acceptable extrapolation of the 'high crimes and misdemeanors' clause.
The same applies to Bush, but on a staggeringly more important level. He misused the Department of Defense, the people in our military, the treasury, the trust of the American people and the goodwill of the entire world.
Let's all say it together:
Mr. President, we want our over 1,700 countrymen and women back.
We want the at least 100,000 Iraqis killed since the invasion back.
And we want you gone.
-
Information from washingtonpost.com and seattlepi.nwsource.com